If you don’t eat your meat, you can’t have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat?!I’ve heard it said that a person is what she thinks. All in all are you just another brick in the wall?
I was also talking about the same thing, and so was Paul, whom I had quoted. The resurrection of Christ confirmed the hope of them that believed in the OT prophecies of the reality of that resurrection. That is what Paul was saying.
You are very much mistaken. There is NO external evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If there was, everyone would believe. You are confusing “evidence” with testimony! The Apostles testified that Jesus rose from the dead, and cited themselves as being the eyewitnesses of it; but they did not produced any “evidence” for it. Here are a couple of interesting examples. When Paul appeared before Greek philosophers at Mars Hill in Athens, he preached to them Jesus and His resurrection:
I am glad that you believe that He rose from the dead. But how do you know that He rose from the dead? You have no direct evidence. If such evidence existed, everyone would believe. You have faith that He did, not evidence. You trust in the testimony of those who claim He did in the NT. That is called faith, not evidence.
But there is no “external proof”. You are trusting what is stated in the NT, without any evidence. That is called faith, not evidence.
Your experience is not different from mine! We are both exercising faith! You are just making the mistake of thinking that your faith is based on “evidence,” when in fact it is not. It is based on the testimony of the writers of the NT.
The one who has the Spirit of God will know that he is not deceived. The one who has not the Spirit of God may think that he is not deceived; but he will not know that he is not deceived.
I don’t know how the answer to that question will help either of us solve any problem; but if you really want me to answer it, my answer is that in most cases I am sure nobody would want to. But I cannot rule out an exceptional situation when somebody might want to. If someone is extremely evil, and knows that by dying for a lie it will promote his evil in the world, he might be willing to sacrifice himself for his evil cause. Just as good people might be willing do die for a good cause; I cannot exclude the possibility that a very evil person might be willing to die for an evil cause.I believe you and i will have the answers to your questions if you first answer mine: Please tell me, my friend Zer, would anyone in his right mind die for what he knows is a lie?
:coffeeread:
Sorry but I must correct you here. Testimony is evidence. Evidence is that by which an assertion is proven either true or false. Testimony is one kind of evidence the other would be physical. In a court of law items which are physical evidence are called exhibits while verbal evidences are called testimony. Do not confuse testimony with hear say which is not evidence. Testimony is legally binding and logically allowable. The testimony of the Apostles are direct evidence, they gave eyewitness accounts of what they saw. Some people don’t trust the evidence because the witnesses may have lied, in a court they would have been cross examined. Also having physical evidence does not guarantee something as having happened. If that were the case then why do people not believe the miracle of the Eucharist in Lanciano Italy? The evidence is there, it has been studied and can be seen and viewed today yet people do not believe because they believe that the evidence is manufactured or has been tampered with. So if neither types of evidence (verbal/testimony or physical/exhibit) can be trusted prima facia (on it’s face) then how must you decide the veracity of a situation? By corroboration and character. If testimony and physical evidence lines up there is truth to be seen. If corroborative testimony is provided to existing testimony there is truth to be seen. If additional physical evidence is supplied in addition to initial physical evidence there is truth to be seen.
If you want to look at it that way, then Mormonism also has “evidence”. There are three independent witness (followed by a further eight) who saw the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and their testimonies are published in the Book of Mormon. We have twelve Apostles at the head of the Church whose official mission and calling is to be “special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world” (D&C 107:23). They testify that they know Him, and know that He is. Testimony is indeed a vital component of the theology of the Latter-day Saints.Sorry but I must correct you here. Testimony is evidence. Evidence is that by which an assertion is proven either true or false. Testimony is one kind of evidence the other would be physical. In a court of law items which are physical evidence are called exhibits while verbal evidences are called testimony. Do not confuse testimony with hear say which is not evidence. Testimony is legally binding and logically allowable. The testimony of the Apostles are direct evidence, they gave eyewitness accounts of what they saw. Some people don’t trust the evidence because the witnesses may have lied, in a court they would have been cross examined. Also having physical evidence does not guarantee something as having happened. If that were the case then why do people not believe the miracle of the Eucharist in Lanciano Italy? The evidence is there, it has been studied and can be seen and viewed today yet people do not believe because they believe that the evidence is manufactured or has been tampered with. So if neither types of evidence (verbal/testimony or physical/exhibit) can be trusted prima facia (on it’s face) then how must you decide the veracity of a situation? By corroboration and character. If testimony and physical evidence lines up there is truth to be seen. If corroborative testimony is provided to existing testimony there is truth to be seen. If additional physical evidence is supplied in addition to initial physical evidence there is truth to be seen.
So we have the 12 apostles who testify of Christ’s resurrection. All corroborate the testimony thus providing a high assurance of the veracity of the claim. Obviously physical evidence does not exist aside from the empty tomb, the lack of a body, and the shroud of Turin. The physical evidence can be verified as existing and has been to an extent. But again there are those who wish to say that the physical evidence is not genuine and has been fabricated or the locations not known. So that leaves us with the evidence that can not be questioned (i.e. cross examined). The testimony of the 12 and 500 others who saw Christ’s resurrected body. Either the Apostles and disciples were liars or it happened. To my knowledge there are no evidences (verbal or physical) that show any of the 12 to be liars. In Acts it says Paul was mocked. To be mocked is not the same as being labeled a liar.
Also if testimony was not evidence then why do LDS spend so much time falling back on their testimony of LDS scripture? According to your stated understanding of evidence It is not evidence so why use it as such.
Man finally my Administration of Justice degree was useful for something, cause it sure hasn’t helped me in my sales job.
Yes, i see your point, and i agree.
Yes, i see what you mean. I was thinking eyewitness testimony is evidence, since the witnesses saw Jesus after he rose from the dead.
Because that is in the nature of the operation of the Spirit of God on the human mind; otherwise there would be no difference between the Spirit of God and the spirit of Satan.Then i must ask, how do you know that you know and not that you merely think?
:clapping: Well done! :dancing:Sorry but I must correct you here. Testimony is evidence. Evidence is that by which an assertion is proven either true or false. Testimony is one kind of evidence the other would be physical. In a court of law items which are physical evidence are called exhibits while verbal evidences are called testimony. Do not confuse testimony with hear say which is not evidence. Testimony is legally binding and logically allowable. The testimony of the Apostles are direct evidence, they gave eyewitness accounts of what they saw. Some people don’t trust the evidence because the witnesses may have lied, in a court they would have been cross examined. Also having physical evidence does not guarantee something as having happened. If that were the case then why do people not believe the miracle of the Eucharist in Lanciano Italy? The evidence is there, it has been studied and can be seen and viewed today yet people do not believe because they believe that the evidence is manufactured or has been tampered with. So if neither types of evidence (verbal/testimony or physical/exhibit) can be trusted prima facia (on it’s face) then how must you decide the veracity of a situation? By corroboration and character. If testimony and physical evidence lines up there is truth to be seen. If corroborative testimony is provided to existing testimony there is truth to be seen. If additional physical evidence is supplied in addition to initial physical evidence there is truth to be seen.
So we have the 12 apostles who testify of Christ’s resurrection. All corroborate the testimony thus providing a high assurance of the veracity of the claim. Obviously physical evidence does not exist aside from the empty tomb, the lack of a body, and the shroud of Turin. The physical evidence can be verified as existing and has been to an extent. But again there are those who wish to say that the physical evidence is not genuine and has been fabricated or the locations not known. So that leaves us with the evidence that can not be questioned (i.e. cross examined). The testimony of the 12 and 500 others who saw Christ’s resurrected body. Either the Apostles and disciples were liars or it happened. To my knowledge there are no evidences (verbal or physical) that show any of the 12 to be liars. In Acts it says Paul was mocked. To be mocked is not the same as being labeled a liar.
Also if testimony was not evidence then why do LDS spend so much time falling back on their testimony of LDS scripture? According to your stated understanding of evidence It is not evidence so why use it as such.
Man finally my Administration of Justice degree was useful for something, cause it sure hasn’t helped me in my sales job.
That makes no sense. It’s just a play on words. I may know in my heart that gravity doesn’t exist. But guess what gravity does exist. No matter how much you want something to change or want to believe something wrong you can’t change the truth. That’s the nature of truth.
The only thing is that we know that all of the Mormon witnesses were of shady characters and were close friends with Joseph Smith, furthermore we know that Joseph Smith had a disreputable character and was known to lie and make things up just for money. And if the Smith’s witnesses really believed what they saw why did many of them leave the lds latter on?
Evidence is evidence whether you choose to accept it or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the quality of the testimony and does it stand up to cross examination and does it have any corroboration. The testimonies of the 12 Apostles plus the 500 others are corroborative. The character of the 12 Apostles must then be taken into account. Are they liars, or are they known to be mentally unstable. I would say the available evidence shows that they are not liars, nor were they mentally unstable. Unfortunately we can not cross examine them.
:tiphat: Thanks.
That is rubbish. We are talking about testimony, not “evidence” per se. A testimony is evidence if you are willing to accept it as evidence.
Of course they don’t have to be 1800 years old to have that testimony. Paul had not been a disciple of Christ, and was not one of the original Apostles, and therefore was not a witness of Christ’s resurrection at the same time as the rest of the Twelve Apostles were. But he was a witness of Christ’s resurrection because the Lord appeared to him at a later date in his ministry. How do you know that the modern day Apostles of Christ do not have the same testimony that Paul had?
You can discredit or disbelieve anyone’s testimony you like. That is easy to do. The vast majority of the early Jews and early Romans did not give credence to the testimony of Jesus or His Apostles. Today things are no different.
Nothing credible that I have seen.
That is up to you. I am neither interested nor uninterested in starting such a thread. If you want to do so, you can; and if I find that it is of interest to me, I will take part in the discussions.
Yes, i cannot see why someone would die for a lie, either. I can understand that if a person thinks he has something to gain if he somehow escapes death then he might intentionally deceive, but this is evil. So, then, do you now see the relevance of my inquiry, my friend Zer? The followers of Jesus suffered and died for their preaching that Jesus rose from the dead. I can think of only five conclusions about them. Peter, Paul Matthew and the other apostles were either: